State v. Vasquez

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                

State of North Dakota,                                               Plaintiff
      v.
Jose Francesco Vasquez,                             Defendant and Appellant



                                No. 20250196

Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jose Francesco Vasquez, self-represented, Hazen, ND, defendant and appellant;
on brief.
                                State v. Vasquez
                                  No. 20250196

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Jose Vasquez appeals from a district court judgment convicting him of
preventing arrest or discharge of other duties, driving while license is
suspended, and failure to transfer title. On appeal, Vasquez argues the court
lacked jurisdiction, the court’s reliance on Department of Transportation
suspension notices sent to an undeliverable address violated due process,
enforcement of vehicle registration requirements “appear[ed] predicated on an
ambiguous interpretation that no clearly codified requirement for non-resident
vehicle registration exists,” officers practiced selective enforcement by charging
a non-resident under an ambiguous statute and mischaracterizing his actions as
preventing arrest, and the court erred in finding him guilty of preventing arrest.

[¶2] Vasquez’s legal arguments are sparse, largely unsupported, and fail to
include citations to the record showing the issues on appeal were raised in the
district court. Under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), imperative requirements of an
appellant’s brief include: a statement of the issues presented for review; a
statement of the facts, and, where those facts are disputed, references to the
evidentiary record supporting the appellant’s statement of facts; and appellant’s
legal argument, including the authorities appellant relies upon. State v. Noack,

, 

. Vasquez’s brief omits numerous components
required under N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), including table of contents, table of
authorities, grounds for appellate jurisdiction, record citations, authorities
supporting his jurisdictional argument, and standards of review.

[¶3] As Vasquez’s brief does not meet the minimum requirements of
N.D.R.App.P. 28(b), and his arguments are not adequately supported, we
summarily affirm the district court’s judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).




                                        1
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr




                           2